Angola Personal Data Protection Law (Law No. 22/11)vsRFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21)
See exactly how Angola Personal Data Protection Law (Law No. 22/11) controls map to RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21). Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.
According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:
Angola Personal Data Protection Law (Law No. 22/11) maps to RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21) with 13% coverage across 4 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 31 Angola Personal Data Protection Law (Law No. 22/11) controls identifies 27 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Chapter III: Rights of Data Subjects.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 31 controls analysed | 693 frameworks | 819K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 12 of 12 mapped controls across 2 domains. Sign up to explore all 819K+ mappings across 693 frameworks.
Chapter I: General Provisions(9 mappings)
Chapter VI: Data Protection Agency (APD)(3 mappings)
Related Comparisons
Other Angola Personal Data Protection Law (Law No. 22/11) comparisons
Other RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21) comparisons
Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets
AI-powered compliance intelligence across 693 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.
Free
- ✓ 693 framework browser
- ✓ Cross-framework mappings (819K+)
- ✓ 824 compliance assessments
- ✓ 3 AI queries & searches per day
Professional
- ✓ Unlimited AI Compliance Advisory
- ✓ Unlimited full-text search
- ✓ Framework self-assessment
- ✓ PDF, Excel & CSV exports
What are the key differences between Angola Personal Data Protection Law (Law No. 22/11) and RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21)?
Angola Personal Data Protection Law (Law No. 22/11) has 31 controls across its framework, while RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21) covers 18 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 4 overlapping controls (13% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Chapter III: Rights of Data Subjects, where 7 Angola Personal Data Protection Law (Law No. 22/11) controls have no direct RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21) equivalent.
How many controls map between Angola Personal Data Protection Law (Law No. 22/11) and RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21)?
Of 31 total Angola Personal Data Protection Law (Law No. 22/11) controls, 4 map directly to RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21) controls — representing 13% coverage. The remaining 27 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.
What are the compliance gaps when mapping Angola Personal Data Protection Law (Law No. 22/11) to RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21)?
27 Angola Personal Data Protection Law (Law No. 22/11) controls have no direct equivalent in RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21). The highest concentration of gaps is in Chapter III: Rights of Data Subjects with 7 unmapped controls. These gaps represent areas where additional controls, policies, or documentation must be created to achieve compliance with both frameworks.
Which control domains have the most gaps between Angola Personal Data Protection Law (Law No. 22/11) and RFC 2350 — Expectations for Computer Security Incident Response (BCP 21)?
The domain with the highest gap count is Chapter III: Rights of Data Subjects (7 gaps). Export the full domain-by-domain gap breakdown via the Professional tier to generate a prioritised remediation roadmap.
Related Resources
This platform provides educational compliance tools, not legal, regulatory, or professional compliance advice. Cross-framework mappings are AI-assisted interpretations and do not reproduce or replace official standards. Framework names and trademarks belong to their respective owners. Consult qualified professionals for your specific compliance requirements. See our Terms of Service.